Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Canadian Firearms Legislation and Effects on Homicide 1974 to 2008
Caillin Langmann, MD, PhD
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511433515
Article information
https://www.altmetric.com/details.php?domain=journals.sagepub.com&citation_id=610309
Abstract
Canada has implemented legislation covering all firearms since 1977 and presents a model to examine incremental firearms control. The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date. Legislative effects on homicide and spousal homicide were analyzed using data obtained from Statistics Canada from 1974 to 2008. Three statistical methods were applied to search for any associated effects of firearms legislation. Interrupted time series regression, ARIMA, and Joinpoint analysis were performed. Neither were any significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates found after the passage of three Acts by the Canadian Parliament—Bill C-51 (1977), C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995)—nor were effects found after the implementation of licensing in 2001 and the registration of rifles and shotguns in 2003. After the passage of C-68, a decrease in the rate of the decline of homicide by firearm was found by interrupted regression. Joinpoint analysis also found an increasing trend in homicide by firearm rate post the enactment of the licensing portion of C-68. Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate. This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260511433515
Caillin Langmann, MD, PhD
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511433515
Article information
https://www.altmetric.com/details.php?domain=journals.sagepub.com&citation_id=610309
Abstract
Canada has implemented legislation covering all firearms since 1977 and presents a model to examine incremental firearms control. The effect of legislation on homicide by firearm and the subcategory, spousal homicide, is controversial and has not been well studied to date. Legislative effects on homicide and spousal homicide were analyzed using data obtained from Statistics Canada from 1974 to 2008. Three statistical methods were applied to search for any associated effects of firearms legislation. Interrupted time series regression, ARIMA, and Joinpoint analysis were performed. Neither were any significant beneficial associations between firearms legislation and homicide or spousal homicide rates found after the passage of three Acts by the Canadian Parliament—Bill C-51 (1977), C-17 (1991), and C-68 (1995)—nor were effects found after the implementation of licensing in 2001 and the registration of rifles and shotguns in 2003. After the passage of C-68, a decrease in the rate of the decline of homicide by firearm was found by interrupted regression. Joinpoint analysis also found an increasing trend in homicide by firearm rate post the enactment of the licensing portion of C-68. Other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate. This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260511433515
Liberals seem to thinkthat putting more restriction on gun ownership will reduce crime when it really doesn't
But they stop carding that was a proven tool in reducing street crime
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...f-faults-new-ontario-restrictions-on-carding/
But they stop carding that was a proven tool in reducing street crime
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...f-faults-new-ontario-restrictions-on-carding/
SURELY YOU ARE NOT EXPECTING LIE-BERALS TO SHOW LOGIC AT THIS LATE DATE??????????????????????????????????
Here is an article illustrating how the outspoken U of T professor Jordan Peterson ran afoul of radical transgender loons and their LIE-beral pals. With some comments of my own in brackets):
Just call me ‘nibble’, or else
By Jerry Agar, Toronto Sun. First posted: Monday, November 07, 2016 04:30 PM EST | Updated: Monday, November 07, 2016 04:40 PM EST
Once they’re done with Jordan Peterson, they’ll come for you- U of T prof in a bind
Why I won’t use ‘preferred’ pronouns – and why you shouldn’t either
Consider yourself warned. Because from this point on I insist that anyone referring to me in any way will NOT use the gender normative pronouns or determiners “he”, “him” or “his.”
I identify with the gender free pronoun “nibble”, the variants of which are “neeble” and “nobble”. The federal government is about to pass a law that could allow me to take you to court, perhaps to jail, if you get it wrong.
I am not making this up.
The following sentence would not be acceptable in Jerry-world: “You know how Jerry is, he does his radio show and newspaper column and hopes you like him.”
Acceptable in Jerry-world would be: “You know how Jerry is, nibble does neeble show and hopes you like nobble.” If anyone is caught not following this direction, I will argue they are guilty of a hate crime.
Now, I have to admit, I am jumping the gun a bit. The Trudeau government’s Bill C-16 has yet to pass. But it is moving forward with little public debate. It will make it criminal, many argue, to refuse to use totally made up pronouns.
Perhaps you think this is a tempest in a tea pot; a storm whipped up by those who won’t do a man who identifies as a woman the kindness of referring to her as “she”.
But it is not that simple.
(Peterson got into hot water with Human Rights Kangaroo Court poobahs because of his interacion with a student of his who is transitioning` from one gender to another. Peterson and the student were both interviewed on Toronto tv and it is obvious the student has very carefully DELETED any clue to the gender of the student! But Peterson has seen the student course application and knows the name and gender of the student and thus used the correct gender specific pronoun to refer to the student in a class- yes- Peterson The Monster- referred to the student as “he” or “she” - we don’t know which- INSTEAD of using the made up- non gender specific pronoun the student prefers! Is this not a monstrous sin? Shall we turn the country upside down for this? And how DESPERATE for votes are LIE-berals that they should cater to such NONSENSE! AS Agar points out- should this non use of a made up word become a criminal offense?)
Consider Prof. Jordan Peterson’s experience at the once proud University of Toronto.
He makes the sensible claim he can’t possibly remember over 50 invented pronouns he has already encountered, and that it is dangerous to codify into law that he must.
He has been shouted down at public debates and been told by the university he must comply.
The law in Canada is moving towards putting Prof. Peterson in a position where it is almost inevitable he will find himself before some court for not having used the pronoun insisted upon by someone who is out to get him.
(Peterson is on record as stating that some university courses are “corrupted” by radical thinkers! He cites Women`s Studies and Black History courses as having been taken over by radicals who do hold unconventional views that many ordinary Cdns would find offensive! And considering the divisive reverse bigotry offered up by Black Lives matter as they defend pimps, drug addicts and thieves from `police harassment` its not hard to see that Peterson might be right!)
This is already a country that allows kangaroo courts known as human rights tribunals to impose legal charges against people who have hurt someone else’s feelings. In one case famous Cdn writer W.P. Kinsella was dragged before a Human Rights but to often wrong Tribunal )
I wish I was making this up. But you and I should fear for the fact I am not.
This Orwellian nightmare is a giant snowball rolling down a steep hill, and the Trudeau government, enabled by people like the fools at the University of Toronto, is pushing it along.
(LIE-beralk efforts to condemn “Islamophobia” as a way to silence critics of LIE-beral policy are already well into territory that George Orwell would find food for thought!)
As Peterson wrote in the Sun, addressing the assertion he is putting up a straw man argument, “As far as I am concerned, the letters from the University of Toronto indicated that my concerns were well-founded. Why else warn me that my actions potentially contravened the Ontario Human Rights Code? So much for the scare-mongering accusations.”
The idea every individual has the right to invent his or her own pronouns and demand they be used in their presence is so disconnected from reality, it could only come from politicians and politically correct professors.
(University applications forms are a form of legal contract- you agree to pay fees in exchange for education and you MUST identify yourself clearly- yet Peterson is being harassed for referring to a student by a correct pronoun based on the university application form information! How much civil service time will be wasted on this matter that is a storm in a non gender specific tea cup?)
The rest of us live in the real world.
And, a final warning. If and when you write or call my editor to complain about me, make sure you say: “I can’t believe nibble has a column. I hate nobble.”
Or I’ll sue.
- Agar hosts the 9 a.m. to noon show on Newstalk1010
So even at my worst I am still ahead of LIE-berals like you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So you are offering a half witted ......................or QUARTER WITTED compliment?????????????????????????
SMILE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So self inflicted injury is violent to society? Can't wait for you to explain that, wait...…………….
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
OK I got my popcorn let's hear your explanation to your statement LOl
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
OK I got my popcorn let's hear your explanation to your statement LOl
Yet, I bet you fully support state-sponsored suicide.
Should we include those among the people murdered by the state?
After all, states are by far the worst mass murderers on earth.
Which is why the people must retain the ability to do violence.
Assault Speech and Hate Weapons- the media spin that would make Orwell proud
February 2, 2019
tags: corruption, news media, politics
It is dangerous to let other people do our thinking for us. We seem certain we can define “hate speech”. We’re convinced that “assault weapons” are bad. Both terms have been manipulated by politicians and the media to mean anything they want them to mean. We were sold such a twisted-logic of lies that it would be funny.. if it were not so dangerous.
Elites with armed bodyguards tell us to give up our tools of self-defense. We’re called toxic-hateful-deplorable-clingers if we object. “Assault weapon” is a debating term and so is “hate speech”. An assault weapon is any firearm a politician wants to confiscate. “Hate speech” are any statements that criticize the politician’s latest voting block. The elites lie to us. Look at their record of hypocrisy to see the truth of that statement.
Wayne LaPierre is the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. La Pierre has armed guards at work and at home. Gun-confiscation spokesmen Shannon Watts and Alyssa Milano have armed guards too. I’ve seen them. The important distinction is that La Pierre says we should have the same protection that he has. Milano and Watts want the rest of us disarmed.. while they remain protected. My response is simple. If being disarmed is so great, then you go first and show us by example.
That is only the beginning of the hypocrisy. Hollywood media events are “gun-free” zones.. yet they have armed security teams all around the venue. In vivid contrast, I stood with about 20 thousand armed men and women as we shook hands with Donald Trump Junior. A blind man can see the difference. One side walks-the-walk and the other talks out of both sides of their mouth.
You have examples of gross hypocrisy closer to home. That gun in your safe is an “assault weapon intended only to kill”.. when you own it. The news media calls the same firearm “a patrol rifle used for defense” when it is in the hands of your local police. That gun is called a “personal defense weapon” when Homeland Security slings it across their chest in an airport. The media manipulates these terms to fit their agenda. Their hidden message is the same if it comes from the media or the advocates of gun-confiscation. The media must disguise the simple meaning of their message because we’d laugh in disbelief if they said it too plainly. Their message is this-
You’re dangerous and the elites are trustworthy.
Politicians and judges are hypocrites.. but you knew that. The so called ”high capacity magazine” in your gun is quickly reclassified as a “standard capacity magazine” when a police officer carries it. The only difference between you and a law enforcement officer is that the cop works for the state while you protect your family on your own. The judge rules that you don’t need that much ammunition to protect your family. At the same time, the judge says the bailiff in the courtroom should have more cartridges in his gun to protect the judge.
The judge applies the pejorative bias of hate speech to our rights.. but not to his.
Some people think they are more equal than others. The ugly reason they get away with it is politics. Hate speech used to mean calling someone a nigger, a kike, or a jap. It morphed to calling someone an illegal immigrant or a woman. The elites label something as hate speech when being offended serves their political purpose. They call something “hate speech” when they claim a group needs special political treatment. This fine-slicing of identity politics leads to a perverse race to ever-smaller minorities.
Their rarity is considered a virtue. A small group of people gets to claim their impotence, their victimization, and therefore their superior claim to government power over everyone else. I can see the signs now-
“Millennial agender redheaded Navajo-speaking Polynesians from Fargo unite.”
At least they won’t have a problem finding a room to fit all of them. A table for two should be enough.. with room left over.
That claim of being an oppressed minority eventually leads to individuality. You are the ultimate minority group.. even though that is an anathema to socialists with their dependence on marxist theory and group identity. We are unique but are exactly equal in our human rights. To say otherwise is to subjugate our humanity to political interests. That subjugation requires some very twisted language.. and some very dangerous government power.
You know the truth when you hear it. You also know when you’re told a lie. The answer is the same without regard to the social status of the person lying to you. Throw the lies back in their face.
https://slowfacts.wordpress.com/201...-the-media-spin-that-would-make-orwell-proud/
February 2, 2019
tags: corruption, news media, politics
It is dangerous to let other people do our thinking for us. We seem certain we can define “hate speech”. We’re convinced that “assault weapons” are bad. Both terms have been manipulated by politicians and the media to mean anything they want them to mean. We were sold such a twisted-logic of lies that it would be funny.. if it were not so dangerous.
Elites with armed bodyguards tell us to give up our tools of self-defense. We’re called toxic-hateful-deplorable-clingers if we object. “Assault weapon” is a debating term and so is “hate speech”. An assault weapon is any firearm a politician wants to confiscate. “Hate speech” are any statements that criticize the politician’s latest voting block. The elites lie to us. Look at their record of hypocrisy to see the truth of that statement.
Wayne LaPierre is the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. La Pierre has armed guards at work and at home. Gun-confiscation spokesmen Shannon Watts and Alyssa Milano have armed guards too. I’ve seen them. The important distinction is that La Pierre says we should have the same protection that he has. Milano and Watts want the rest of us disarmed.. while they remain protected. My response is simple. If being disarmed is so great, then you go first and show us by example.
That is only the beginning of the hypocrisy. Hollywood media events are “gun-free” zones.. yet they have armed security teams all around the venue. In vivid contrast, I stood with about 20 thousand armed men and women as we shook hands with Donald Trump Junior. A blind man can see the difference. One side walks-the-walk and the other talks out of both sides of their mouth.
You have examples of gross hypocrisy closer to home. That gun in your safe is an “assault weapon intended only to kill”.. when you own it. The news media calls the same firearm “a patrol rifle used for defense” when it is in the hands of your local police. That gun is called a “personal defense weapon” when Homeland Security slings it across their chest in an airport. The media manipulates these terms to fit their agenda. Their hidden message is the same if it comes from the media or the advocates of gun-confiscation. The media must disguise the simple meaning of their message because we’d laugh in disbelief if they said it too plainly. Their message is this-
You’re dangerous and the elites are trustworthy.
Politicians and judges are hypocrites.. but you knew that. The so called ”high capacity magazine” in your gun is quickly reclassified as a “standard capacity magazine” when a police officer carries it. The only difference between you and a law enforcement officer is that the cop works for the state while you protect your family on your own. The judge rules that you don’t need that much ammunition to protect your family. At the same time, the judge says the bailiff in the courtroom should have more cartridges in his gun to protect the judge.
The judge applies the pejorative bias of hate speech to our rights.. but not to his.
Some people think they are more equal than others. The ugly reason they get away with it is politics. Hate speech used to mean calling someone a nigger, a kike, or a jap. It morphed to calling someone an illegal immigrant or a woman. The elites label something as hate speech when being offended serves their political purpose. They call something “hate speech” when they claim a group needs special political treatment. This fine-slicing of identity politics leads to a perverse race to ever-smaller minorities.
Their rarity is considered a virtue. A small group of people gets to claim their impotence, their victimization, and therefore their superior claim to government power over everyone else. I can see the signs now-
“Millennial agender redheaded Navajo-speaking Polynesians from Fargo unite.”
At least they won’t have a problem finding a room to fit all of them. A table for two should be enough.. with room left over.
That claim of being an oppressed minority eventually leads to individuality. You are the ultimate minority group.. even though that is an anathema to socialists with their dependence on marxist theory and group identity. We are unique but are exactly equal in our human rights. To say otherwise is to subjugate our humanity to political interests. That subjugation requires some very twisted language.. and some very dangerous government power.
You know the truth when you hear it. You also know when you’re told a lie. The answer is the same without regard to the social status of the person lying to you. Throw the lies back in their face.
https://slowfacts.wordpress.com/201...-the-media-spin-that-would-make-orwell-proud/
Did you read what you wrote?
Canada is experiencing an increase in the number of homicides involving guns and gangs.
Nothing to do with me.
Nothing to do with 2.2 million licensed gun owners.
A situation totally immune from attacks on legal, licensed gun owners.
As well, the murder rate is lower than it was 10 years ago..........and is still quite low, as the rate in 2017 was 1.8 per 100,000...........very low.
Because morons like you, or that you support, are lying through their teeth in an attempt to even further disrupt the legal use of firearms in Canada.